zacharytelschow

Not just time, but cost also. As my wife also works from home we've been able to scale back to a single car for 2 years now. Since owning, insuring, fueling, repairing, and maintaining a car typically runs $6k-$10k/year (depending on your tastes and mileage) I've gotten a substantial financial benefit from being remote.

> Everyone commutes through traffic/crowded public transport and risk catching the latest novel virus, to arrive at work at the same time. Everyone has lunch at the same time so it’s crowded as heck and we get even more mortal danger.

Apropos username.

> We can easily look at that chart and guess what it's going to look like over the next 10 years.

That's why all the past predictions have been so accurate, right? "But we know more now." We do not. Some intellectual humility by those wanting tyranical control over our lives would be fantastic.

If it's a federal failure why are the homeless highly concentrated in certain areas?

Civil War -> end of slavery

Civil rights movement -> equality under the law of all Americans (with later protections under affirmative action actually giving minorities a modest advantage in some situtions)

What hoped for outcome is being sought now? "Give me money because things aren't fair" isn't a change in law or status, it's grievance politics that has no logical end.

Disparate outcomes aren't proof of social injustice; disparate outcomes are proof of disparate behavior.

> we clearly have better answers to questions of race

Do we? It seems like racial tensions are higher than they've been during my lifetime because there's a grievance culture explicitly focused on race instead of treating people as individuals based on their merits. By the standards of today, MLK's request to treat people based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character is rejected as racist.

Not just racially but also in terms of worldview, culture, and heritage.

> working to prevent the conditions that create violent crime in the first place

The conditions that prevent violent crime are simple: consequences for violence. Many jurisdictions let people that commit violent crime walk again and again.

From my neck of the woods? The perpetrator of the Waukesha parada massacre had a long history of violent behavior and was out on bail for trying to run someone over with his car a few days prior. Aliyah Perez, the niece of a Milwaukee alderman, was killed in a domestic situation by a man that had previously committed "a brutal domestic attack in which he stomped on, choked, and punched the victim, pulling out clumps of her hair and knocking out a tooth." He was given a minimum sentence only to return to his previous behavior and kill his next victim.

I don't care how our prison population compares to the rest of the world if clearly dangerous and violent people are walking free. The purpose of prison is to separate such people from the rest of society.

> The is primarily due to the conservative party's realization half a century ago that they could motivate their base with rage and grievance politics instead of with good policy, and win doing so

Democrats are mayors of 31 of the nation's 34 largest cities, most of which are places I certainly would not care to live. Is it "good policy" that lead to the reason for this article, or are all of San Francisco's 8 Republicans to blame for this tragedy?

> The GOP is all about anger and, honestly, hate.

Ahhh yes. Supporting school choice to get inner city kids out of crap schools is hate based. Not wanting children who aren't even able to consent to going on school field trips to make permanent, life altering decisions by destroying their bodies? Clearly an anger thing.

> It's easier to sell "hey, just get more cops" than to explain that crime is often driven by economics

Yep, people are stealing iPhones because they're starving. That's 100% a thing that is happening. And violent crime surely has economic advantage attached to it, right? The guy who killed Bob is now richer thanks to his actions?

You appear to be completely unable to engage on the issues in good faith while whining that "the other side" is doing exactly the same thing.

Elections don't decide which policies will work, only which will be implemented. It's quite simple to see what worked elsewhere and in the past if people would care to look.

> Could someone please enlighten me on why we don't treat governing like we do software solutions?

Because half the country doesn't like the answers that experience produces. Reducing crime isn't hard: support and hire police, put criminals behind bars, and ticket even small/petty crime (broken windows policing). The formula works but because evenly applying the rules produces disparate outcomes among various groups it's evidently racist and it's preferable to just allow violent criminals to run unchecked on the streets.

> Republican-controlled US government freezing the bank accounts of anyone who donated to Planned Parenthood

I'm not familiar with this. Searches yield articles about freezing of Planned Parenthood funding. Could you point me in the right direction for more details?

Can I correctly surmise that you're Canadian? If so, your leader declared a national emergency to squash free speech, banished handguns so you can no longer protect yourself, and cut off political opponents from the financial system. Trying to control the books children can view in an educational environment seems trivial by comparison.

Data validation is a basic expectation in many technology stacks. I don't understand why blockchain would be uniquely positioned to resolve this problem.